Over the course of President Obama's first term the notion that the foreign policy of the US has never been more cogent, more influential, throughout the rest of the world than it has at this time has become the current mantra of his media supporters. Even during the recent Democrat National Convention the idea that Obama and his party now have the upper hand when it comes to the foreign policy debate was front and center. Due to this sentiment the conventional wisdom is that GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney is best served to not bring up foreign policy because of the insurmountable odds of finding a chink in Obama's foreign policy armor.

On the surface this conventional wisdom is correct. Obama has made great strides in targeting and killing senior members of al Qaeda, including Osama bin Laden. Whether in Afghanistan or in Yemen, jihadists have to keep a close eye on what is coming out of the sky thanks to surgical drone strikes. The Obama administration has also gotten behind the “Arab Spring” and voiced support for domestic uprisings that seek to bring representative government to states such as Tunis, Libya, and Egypt. To be sure other areas of US foreign policy are viewed in the light of total success.

However, when you peel back the thin surface of this complex apple you will see that there is a foreign policy that is running out of steam and is in drastic need of refocus.

For starters, take the jihadists that make up al Qaeda. While Obama rains down hell fire on them, there is a suspicion that the administration is actually working with them to oust the Bashar Assad regime in Syria. Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed of Foreign Policy In Focus explained on 20 August that the US has had Special Operations Forces on the ground in the countries that surround Syria training them how to commit sabotage and other types of guerrilla tactics. Stratfor analyst Reva Bhalla was reported to say "they [US Air Force Strategic Studies Group] said without saying that SOF [Special Operations Forces] teams are already on the ground focused on [reconnaissance] missions and training opposition forces." And Ahmed goes on to say that this type of collaboration was begun under the Bush administration with Saudi Arabia to weaken Hizb'ullah. He mentions a Seymour Hersh piece from the New Yorker that explains this collaboration has put the US in a position of supporting "Sunni extremist groups hostile to the United States and sympathetic to al Qaeda." And all for the express purpose of ending the government of Bashar al Assad.

Then of course there is the events from last week that saw the US ambassador and three other Americans killed in Libya and the American embassy in Cairo stormed and ransacked all due to what we are being told is a YouTube movie critical of the Prophet Muhammad that is less than twenty minutes, and all of this began on the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the US. However, the Libyan and Egyptian governments both maintain that the US was warned that these "uprisings" were going to take place, and, in fact, the Libyan president, on US television over the weekend, maintained that the attacks that took place in his country were not spontaneous and that his government warned the US. Now both the entire Muslim world and US embassies in the region are aflame with violent outrage by "offended" Muslims.

In light of all of this, what is Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney to do about this formidable foreign policy legacy of President Obama? Following the initial stages of the violent protests in Cairo, and the statement put out by that embassy bemoaning the free speech of Americans prior to, he took the proper first step to engaging the notion that he should just keep mum on foreign policy. He stood up for the ideas of free speech as enshrined by our First Amendment. Now it is important that he keep the pressure on and explain why there is no way that any of this is due solely to a brief YouTube flick, and that these are actions of extremists seeking to spread an extreme ideology shrouded in a religion.

Romney has detailed what he would do in the cases of Iran and China, and now it is time for him to detail how exactly he would deal with the Islamist threat. He should make it clear that, in the case of the US, Sharia law will not be enforced on Americans. If a small time nobody or the writers of South Park want to make fun of Muhammad, then it is their right as citizens of the US to do so.

Second he must tie peace with Israel to US foreign aid. Egypt has made remarks regarding the long standing peace treaty with Israel being back on the table of discussion, meaning that they want to restructure it. Well if Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood would like to continue receiving $1.5 billion in aid from the US, then it would be best that restructuring the treaty will be more about making sure there are no typos.

Finally, Romney needs to send a message to Saudi Arabia that supplying us with oil does not give them cover in supporting Sunni jihadist groups in the Middle East, even if the targets are those that the US would actually like to see go. To put teeth to this threat Romney will need to ensure oil resources from our true partner Canada while expanding the ability of energy companies to expand the production of natural gas and domestic oil, among other energy resources.

These short foreign policy initiatives would go a long way in contrasting Romney with Obama to the voters. It affirms our rights as Americans, our commitment to the only real ally we have in the Middle East, and a means to weaken the revenue stream to countries that we may not trust while creating jobs at home. Foreign policy is not the number one issue in this year's election, it is not even number three or four. However, it is an issue and it is one that Romney can actually win if he spends some time on it and call Obama out for his incompetence.


The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...

The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on tax deductible donations from our readers and contributors. Please make a tax deductible donation today.